https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357853 Exemption under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. was treated as available even where re-import occurred after the stipulated one-year period, because the delay was regarded as a technical lapse and the Board circular was applied as relaxing the time condition for EOUs. The analysis also relied on an earlier decision upheld by the Supreme Court, noting that the notification conditions were similar. On that basis, denial of the exemption solely for non-compliance with the one-year requirement was not justified, and the exemption benefit was sustained. en-us Tue, 20 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2018 07:15:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357853 Exemption under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. was treated as available even where re-import occurred after the stipulated one-year period, because the delay was regarded as a technical lapse and the Board circular was applied as relaxing the time condition for EOUs. The analysis also relied on an earlier decision upheld by the Supreme Court, noting that the notification conditions were similar. On that basis, denial of the exemption solely for non-compliance with the one-year requirement was not justified, and the exemption benefit was sustained. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 20 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357853